Was Holy Spirit Added To Trinity

Warwick, it's not only the New World Translation which omits the spurious 'me' at John 14:14. What you duck and avoid commenting on is that the King James Version also correctly renders this verse as, 'If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it'. Also correct in ASV and others.

The NWT is not alone in upholding the original sense of John 14:14, which avoids the pagan trinity teaching.

Not only do trinitarian mis-translations deceitfully corrupt John 14:14, but you also fail to comment on why your mis-translations corrupt John 17:11, where you include 'name' twice. 'Name' appears only once in the Westcott & Hort Greek Interlinear!

Strongaxe, you are now in denial. You tried very hard to pin the child murders of Matthew chapter 2 on God with your fallacious 'sins of the father' reasonings. You've yet to supply evidence in Matthew 2 of the sins the fathers of those innocent kids committed. And you blame me for reading between the lines! Why just Bethlehem and not all Israel?

The only reason why you can't blame Satan is because of your attachment to the pagan xmas festivities, including nativity scenes of which the 'star' is revered. Of course, it would be difficult for you in your church to teach the nativity 'star' came from Satan. You'd be slung out for heresy.

I know JW's believe the 'star' was Satan's doing, that's 8 million people.

Hello Scott! I think your question is defective. How did you get the information that Holy Spirit was added.. in 381AD. Were you around at that time. Do you have all access to whatever have been preached before that time? The Holy Spirit exists before earth-creation. In Gen1:1, God is mentioned, in Gen1:2, "the Spirit of God" is mentioned.

I have no sympathy for the devil whatsoever. I did not blame God for the child murders. I merely said God sent the Star of Bethlehem, not Satan. That Herod chose to turn that into an act of genocide is Herod's fault, not God's.

You said: There are many who recognise the 'star' was sent with the sole purpose to have Jesus put to death.

Really? So far, you are the only one I have ever heard proposing this theory. If there are others, I would be happy to hear about them. Please tell me who some of them are.

I left out the accents over the French words, because entering non-ASCII characters (like accented letters) does not behave properly on these blogs. There are even some normal ASCII characters that don't work properly either (for example, semicolons are automagically turned into commas).

Warwick persistently fails to understand that the Greek Interlinear used by JW's was compiled by Westcott and Hort in 1881. Yes, Westcott and Hort included the spurious trinitarian 'me' at John 14:14. JW's have every right to disagree with them. JW's also have publishing rights to Benjamin Wilson's 'Emphatic Diaglott' which doesn't contain the spurious 'me' at John 14:14. Why worry about Warwick's whingeing?

JW's choose to avoid the spurious trinitarian inclusion of 'me' at John 14:14 that W & H and Eberhard Nestle choose to include. JW's revert to the original meaning of John 14:14 found in early MS and agree with the King James Version- 'If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it'. Let's see if Warwick gets it this time.

Strongaxe- you're the Satan sympathiser who blames God for the child murders in Matthew chapter 2! You also believe God was responsible for the attempted murder of His own Son! You are correct to say Matthew chapter 2 doesn't name Satan, but does it have too? The Devil is in the detail. There are many who recognise the 'star' was sent with the sole purpose to have Jesus put to death. There is only one character who wanted Jesus dead- and it wasn't God!

No doubt you'll claim, 'but I do believe Satan tried to kill Jesus!' Try looking at how Satan did try to kill Jesus.

Regarding your so called 'ad-hominem attack', I don't believe it was attacking his character, rather it serves to highlight exactly the character Warwick is!

BTW the French for blaspheme is blasphemer (blasphaymay, with an acute over the first 'e'.) Lese-Mageste ( less magestay, with an egrave over the first 'e' in lese, and an acute over the second 'e' in mageste. means high treason.

In 1 Kings chapter 21, King Ahab coveted the vineyard of Naboth, who wouldn't sell it to him. Jezebel stole it for him fraud. She procured two false witnesses to accuse him of "blaspheming against God and king" (verses 10 and 13) and had him executed. Such accusations would have been ludicrous if blasphemy against God and blasphemy against the king were not commonly accepted as offenses warranting the death penalty.

In Europe, until recent times, this offense was called (from the French) lese majeste, meaning means injuring the crown, and was considered a treasonous offense.

David I hide behind nobody. I quoted Nestle because his translation of the Greek manuscripts into English is the same as the Interlinnear you JW's use. It shows in both Greek, and English that 'me' is used twice. therefore the correct translation is "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it" ESV. Why does your NWT mistranslation not agree with the Greek Interlinnear you use?

To preserve and disguise your Arian heresy I notice you didn't quote Exodus 24:10ff: ''they saw the God of Israel.''

If they saw the God of Israel, as Scripture says, and that they can't see God, as Scripture also says, then there is only one solution: Moses et al obviously saw Jesus who must also be YHWH. The other accompanying necessary proposition is that you can't see the Father, hence John 6:46.

Re 1 Tim 6: 15-16, but you can see the King of kings. People saw Jesus and he is ''the Lamb [who] will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings'' (Rev 17:14). See also Rev 19:16.

Once again, I expect you to change the goal posts, ignore the point or some other organisation- and face-saving tactic.

Cliff, Law is impersonal so cannot have a personal name. Conversely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are persons.

I have already discussed the Greek words meizon, and kreitton and their meaning. Meizon could be applied to a leader in a greater position (meizon)than others but is not better (kreitton) in substance than others.

Jesus willingly subjected Himself to the Father, becoming a servant. He, Creator of everything (Colossians 1:16) "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness" Philippians 2:6,7.

Warwick, This is a wrong interpretation: In the name of the Father ...is not talking about a personal"name" "In the name of the law"..means by authority of.. same with the "name of the Father" etc..!By authority of: By different positions within the godhead you are admitting that they are not "equal" right? We're not talking better or worse , we are talking Greater or Lesser, right? Greater,lesser, higher, lower, now we're getting somewhere! One little piece at a time! Soon you'll be able to see!

You said: Typical for Warwick to take cover behind his trinitarian masters...

Are you capable of actually discussing a subject without resorting to ad-hominem attacks? Because both here, and in the other blog where you claimed the Star of Bethlehem was sent by Satan, you seemed unable to do so.

As much as I strongly disagree with Warwick (and some other people) on several subjects, I take issues with their conclusions, not their character.

Cliff "...make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

Nothing changes the fact the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed, meaning He is God. Blasphemy against the Father and Son can be forgiven, meaning the Holy Spirit is in this sense higher positionally within the Godhead than the Son or Father.

That the Holy Spirit is sent indicates a positional difference, not a difference in essential being. The JW's try to prove Jesus inferiority using John 14:28-The Father is greater than I. Greater (Greek meizon) also indicates a positional difference ( Jesus willingly made Himself servant) not that the Father is better (Greek kreitton) than the Son.

Scott you proceed upon your JW epic ignoring questions you cannot or will not answer. You ignore the fact that Jesus is God With US, God the Spirit now in Flesh, both the Son of God, and the Son of Man. Blind Freddy could see the difference, pun intended. Notwithstanding Exodus 24:10,11 (which alone destroys your non-point) Jesus is saying He is the exact representation of God both in essence (Spirit) and visually. This is why Jesus can say "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

Warwick, What is disrespectful pointing out that the Holy Spirit is the Power,Active force etc..and not a 3rd person? Father ans Son have names, HS does not! Father and Son forgive HS does not! Father and Son "send" HS! HS sends no one!Has Jesus ever appeared as a bird?tongue of fire, strong wind etc.?Why the "difference" if they are all the same???Doesn't add up!

Trinitarians insist John 14:14 must read, 'You may ask me for anything in my name'. However, 'me' (as in 'ask me') at John 14:14 is not in any Greek MS older than the 3rd Century.

Thus the correct rendering of John 14:14- 'If you ask anything in my name, I will do it' is found in the King James- 'If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it'. Also correct in ASV and others.

This correct rendering agrees with Jo.15:16, 'no matter what you ask the Father in my name he might give it to you', and Jo.16:23, 'If you ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name.'

Typical for Warwick to take cover behind his trinitarian masters such as Eberhard Nestle! Hardly an un-biased counter-argument!

While the crime of "blasphemy" is usually directed at God, it is not necessarily so. There are instances in the Bible where it refers to blasphemy against a king. As such, it is an attitude of disrespect towards someone deserving of respect, but not necessarily God.

Rhonda see Luke 12:10 "the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." The Holman Bible Dictionary defines blasphemy in the Biblical context as "an attitude of disrespect that finds an expression in an act directed against the character of God." Luke says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. Therefore the Holy Spirit is God. By attacking the Holy Spirit's character you are guilty of unforgiveable blasphemy.

David you have written nonsense. The reality is that your own Bible does not follow the Greek Interlinnear you use, as I have shown.

BTW the Greek Interlinnear predates the KJV, doesn't it? I checked also with the Nestle Greek text which directly translated into English reads "If anything ye ask of me in the name of me, I will do." As you see it, (as does the Interlinnerr you use) has 'me' twice but in the NWT the first 'me' has been deleted. You argument is false.

Cliff the point is that David has been garbishing on about those dreated four-eyed, knuckle-draging trinitarians adding and subtracting words from the Bible. At the same time the NWT is infamous for just that, as has been shown.

Poor Warwick doesn't understand the Kingdom Interlinear used by JW's was complied by non-JW's, Westcott and Hort (1881) who chose the trinitarian corruption of John 14:14. As Warwick's analytical skills are worse than useless, it is not surprising he doesn't realise this.

The translators of the original King James version however were correct in omitting the spurious trinitarian corruption, and render John 14:14 correctly, 'If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it'.

Later trinitarian translations however insert the word 'me' changing the meaning altogether, eg.NIV- 'You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.' No trinitarian has the nerve to answer why this change?

While I've made more than my share of spelling and grammar errors on this site, I believe that your last, fairly incoherent, post has me questioning whether you are in a position to seriously discuss the topic of language (Hebrew, Greek as well as English) as it relates to the Biblical translation process.

Let's just leave it with your brilliant assessment that the "NWT is garbish. Made to fit [our] believes...[and that] meanings were change."

This blog has become a battle of bibles, seriously which translation has not been revised? updated? There are no "original" mss ,so it's "My bible is better than your bible!" This is grasping at straws, no translation supports "trinity" if it were true it would have appeared long ago in the OT but it does not! 4,000 years go by and suddenly it's necessary for salvation! OH Yes?? God spoke"audibly" to the Hebrews back then but never indicated that He was more than "ONE God" Deut.6.4.Adjust your focus!

Scott, don't go beyond what is written. Jesus said having seen Him they have seen the Father. Is He therefore, in your opinion, calling Himself the Father?

It appears to me that you are unable to understand this Scripture (and others) because of your anthropomorphic view of God. Like David you propose that trinitarians believe in three Gods where in fact we believe in one and the Son is the exact representation of His being. God is spirit rermember.

You, like David, are bound up in terms such as 'modalism' while I find it more beneficial to stick with what Scripture says.

Scott, the NWT is garbish. Made to fit your believes. Words were ommitted and words were added. Meanings were change but not all of them. They will have to revise it again in order to remove those they forgot or didn't change which are still contraditing their believes. Your believes come from a different source, then the Holy Scriptures. They are inspired by man, not God. Charles Russell said he wrote the truth, then Rutherford came in and he said he wrote the truth, he change many of Russell's believes because he was getting "new light." No longer was Russell the "Slave" now the organisation was the "Slave." As their history tells us they keep getting new light, so what they taught before was not truth after all.

//Or take them out...like the divine name (YHWY) about 7,000 times, replacing it with "Lord"...//---scott on 1/20/12

To be a little more precise, the Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew Bible. Nearly all English versions follow the ancient tradition of rendering the Divine name as the Lord. The King James Version makes only four exceptions (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4), where it renders the name as Jehovah.

So, that means that the scribes of the New World Translation replaced YHWY also about 7,000 times?

It is ironic David would whinge about the dreaded Trinitarian band, pagan polytheists to a man, adding to or subtracting from Scripture. See the Greek Interlinnear JW's use which renders John 14:14, directly from the underlying Greek as "If ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do. By the time it has passed through the WTS mistranslation machine the first 'me' has been subtracted so it becomes "If you ask anything in my name I will do it."

In Colossians 1:16,17 in the NWT the 'other' has been added four times! Their own interlinnear (vs 16) says "because in him (Jesus) it was created the all (things)in the heavens and upon the earth. Where did they get "other" from?

The NWT of 1961 said "Let all God's angels worship him." And isn't is fitting that angels should indeed worship their maker.

However the NWT of 1971 had downgraded "worship" to "obeisance", and nothing you say changes this fact.

One of these translations is wrong. The question which you and Scott will not answer is who made the mistake, was it God or was it the demons of the WTS who claim to speak on God's behalf, as Marc has pointed out?

As I said before Warwick, at Heb.1:6 'worship' and 'obeisance' are both cited in NWT as the meaning for 'proskyneo'. We do actually understand that readers can use their own judgment and intellect to decide which sense of the word 'proskyneo' to employ at Heb.1:6.

You and your trinitarian crowd however do not. Not only do you force feed people with a corrupt diet of pernicious pagan doctrines, but you actually twist scriptures by adding words into the text to support your pagan trinity. Such verses you corrupt are John 14:14 and John 17:11.

Unlike you Warwick, NWT has not added any words to the original text. Who in your corrupt organisation decided to add words and twist the Greek text? God or apostate trinitarians?

Scott as you have read Phillip asked to see the Father. Jesus replied don't you know me Phillip? He can say this because "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

I think it certain Philip was asking to actually see the Father with his eyes not just in some spiritual way and Jesus said "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." This is what Thomas came to understand when he met the risen Jesus, calling Him "My Lord and my God", The Lord of me and the God of me.

There is but one God and Jesus is the imnage of God both visually and in nature.

Unless you are saying that the son IS the Father, Modalist heresy, then consider:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia-

"What is seen in a vision is a revelation from God. Statements that human beings have seen or will see God Himself do not refer to a perception of a physical aspect of God by human physical senses but a process of coming to some amount of understanding of God, often just a simple realization of His greatness or some other aspect of His nature, either by a revelatory vision (Isa. 6:15, Ezk. 1:26-28), or by their acquaintance with Jesus Christ (Jn 14:9, cf. 1:18)." Vol. 4, p. 380, Eerdmans, 1991.

David no matter how you duck and weave you cannot alter the fact that the NWT of 1961 read "And let all God's angels worship him." However by 1971 the NWT had been changed to "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him." Hebrews 1:6. That fact that this concerns angels is irrelevant.

Clearly one of these is a mistranslation. Taking the quote Marc gave into account it appears the WTS is saying the Hebrews 1:6 backflip was God's doing. Is that so?

The New World Translation has not added words to the scriptures. Unlike Warwick's crowd of trinitarians who add words to John 14:14 and John 17:11. Who do Warwick & Marc believe changed these verses, God or their apostate trinitarian masters?

Hebrews 1:6 is speaking of the 'angels', not us. Whether angels 'worship' or do 'obeisance' to Jesus, it is always relative to their worship of Jehovah God. At Heb.1:6 NWT has both 'worship' and 'obeisance' cited- 'worship' in the footnote and 'obeisance' in the main text to allow the reader to use their own intellect and decide for themselves. Trinitarian versions however do not give the reader this privilege to decide- they must suck whatever their trinitarian masters pass their way.

Yes, Scott, who changed 'worship' to 'obeisance' in your mistranslation: was it God or man?

And how does your answer square up with, ''The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower.'' (The Watchtower, "Taught of God", November 1st, 1931, paragraph 19.)

Scott, regarding 1 Corinthians 15:28 "subject" has nothing to do with Jesus essential nature or being, but to His willing, functional subjection to God the Father for the time and purpose of His working out our salvation as the servant He became. Jesus was raised still with His human nature (Luke 24:37-39, Acts 2:31 ). Being flesh He is still in willing subjection to the Father but nonetheless is fully God. Phillip asked Jesus-show us the Father and Jesus replied "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?" Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father How could Jesus, who is without sin, say this unless it were true? Being Truth personified he tells only Truth.

Yes. the english language put in "he" as in a masculnie form, when the holyspirit is part of God,not seperate. The holyspirit is Gods power overflowing working through us,our helper. Jesus ,Gods son(also seperate) is our Messiah and our captain on our journey to Gods kingdom.

Agreed. But, why never "Glory to the Holy Spirit"? ---scott on 1/19/12

Because the HS job is to do the will of the Father. The HS is the helper. This is through the prophets of OT, Jesus was led by the Spirit. This is the problem in many charasmatic churchs because they are all HS but the HS's job is to point to the Father.

Strong Axe, You are right about gender nouns,so why "he" for spirit??? Translator bias as I see it! They were after all "denominational" connected! In Thayer's (one of the best bible scholars known) Lexicon the publisher warned the readers that Thayer was Unitarian and did not support trinity, so beware!!! Bias,Yes!

"The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person...The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone, this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God...

---scott on 1/18/12

You left this out:

Consideration is given in each of these sections to the spirit of God as a power and as a Person.

And this:

... The only passage in the Synoptic Gospels that clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28.19.

"IT" never was part of a trinity...Rom.8.26 KJV = "Itself" (properly translated!)HS is not a "person" but the medium used by the Father and Son to accomplish all things! ---1st_cliff on 1/18/12

The Holy Spirit can be called 'it', as it is not a male even in title. But there are many scripture verse calling the Holy Spirit 'he', it( no pun intended) should not be downplayed. And Jesus himself calls the HS another 'helper', which entails a 'helper' just like Jesus!

"The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person...The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone, this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God...//

the whole Bible in its entirety is a revelation. to reveal. not everything was revealed at one time.

Ok. If "He" was "Always there" and believed to be the 3rd person of the Trinity then why did the Council of Nicea (325ce) not simply re-confirm with some creedal declaration the three-in-one formula: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, emphasizing their equality?

Why was the Holy Spirit not added to the equation until 60 (sixty) years later in Constantinople?

English uses three genders to refer to a person's actual gender (he/she) vs. an object's lack of gender (i.e. it), with only some minor exceptions (e.g. ships are always "she").

Some languages like German use grammatical gender that supercedes actual gender. For example Tabelle (Table) is feminine, while Fraeulein and Maedchen (young woman) are neuter, since all diminutives ending in lein and chen are always neuter.

In Hebrew, Ruach (wind, or spirit) is always feminine, regardless of whether it refers to a person or not. Greek Pneuma is similar. One cannot deduce from grammatical gender whether a Biblical term refers to a person or an object.

The Holy Spirit has been around before any religious groups produced a doctrine about Him . . . in order to make themselves seem to be associated with Him. Whatever they say He is, He is so much more ! ! !

The Bible says, "Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5) So, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love. You might consider > only God can be the Spirit of His own love (c:

I don't hear any trinitarian or nontrinitarian group making it plain that the Holy Spirit is sharing God's own love with us. He is more than people are saying God is. God shares His own love with us, but ones aren't telling us this.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In the beginning the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters - He was there all the time- from the beginning.

Scott, standing/sitting at the right hand of God is a Hebrew term for being in the position of absolute authority, not about anyone standing or sitting anywhere. Unlike you Stephen's listeners considered he was committing blasphemy in saying he saw into heaven and there was Jesus in His Glory, God Almighty.

BTW you are still evading my question regarding the 1961 NWT commanding we "worship" Jesus while the 1971 mistranslation had downgraded "worship" to "obeisance." You of course cannot answer as any answer you give exposes your WTS guru's as fraudsters. This is akin to them, God's socalled Witnesses on earth, firstly saying organ donation was "canibalism" but then later changing their minds.

the party line rebuttal to this claim will be: "Jehovah's witnesses have a history almost 6,000 years long, beginning while the first man, Adam, was still alive," that Adam's son Abel was "the first of an unbroken line of Witnesses," and that "Jesus' disciples were all Jehovah's witnesses [sic] too." (Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, pp. 8-9).

i will agree that they and other sects have been around in one form or another, but they are descendents of the other brother.

no matter what doctrine of man comes to be and when, Elohim (as we know it...not a super God) has always been, is now, and will always be.

1stCliff & Scott, you had better believe Jesus Christ when He declared, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

And again Christ declared, "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matthew 12:31,32

Get ready to go where you have been purposed for the Words spoken by Christ must be fulfilled, and such blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

"The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person...The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone, this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God...

...When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8.29, 16.7, Rom 8.9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person, the same expressions are used also in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Rom 8.6, 7.17)." Vol XIII, pp. 574, 575.